A not-so-cheap shot
I t would have come as no surprise to the chief executive of the Financial Planning Association (FPA), Jo-Anne Bloch, that she was subject to some stern questioning from the floor of the Money Management State of the Industry Breakfast about the perceived lack of an adequate FPA response to the continued advertising by industry superannuation funds.
It should also have come as no surprise to Bloch that the question was put to her by a financial planner who, although it was not stated, is probably a member of the FPA.
Bloch did her best to explain the FPA’s position but, in truth, her best bet was probably to simply confess that the FPA does not have deep enough pockets to match the industry funds.
It might have been somewhat harder for her to acknowledge that what money had been spent by the FPA in countering the industry funds’ advertising campaign had resulted in advertising which failed to impress many of its own members, albeit that market research suggested it was a hit with the viewing public.
What needs to be remembered, however, is that only the largest of corporates could afford the sustained sort of advertising campaign which has been mounted by the industry superannuation funds’ and it would perhaps be in the public interest if those orchestrating the spend actually stated how much it had cost over the past four years.
While those within the industry funds movement might quite rightly point to the advertising campaigns mounted by the likes of AMP or ING, the difference is that the cost of those campaigns must ultimately be revealed to shareholders. It is much, much harder to gain a detailed picture of the industry funds campaign.
What is clear, however, is that the campaign in its various forms, and often pitched at primetime television, has cost superannuation fund members many millions of dollars.
What irks planners, of course, is the perception that the subtext of the industry funds’ campaigns has served to undermine the value of advice in the minds of consumers. That may be so, but the monetary cost of doing so has been exceedingly high.
— Mike Taylor
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
In this week’s episode of Relative Return Unplugged, Dr Vladimir Tyazhelnikov from the University of Sydney’s School of Economics joins the show to break down the shifting sands of global trade dynamics and attempt to understand the way US President Donald Trump is employing tariffs.
In this week’s special episode of Relative Return Unplugged, we present shadow treasurer Angus Taylor’s address at Momentum Media’s Election 2025 event, followed by a Q&A covering the Coalition’s plans for the financial services sector.
In this week’s episode of Relative Return Unplugged, AMP chief economist Shane Oliver joins the show to unravel the web of tariffs that US President Donald Trump launched on trading partners and take a look at the way global economies are likely to be impacted.
In this episode of Relative Return, host Laura Dew is joined by Andrew Lockhart, managing partner at Metrics Credit Partners, to discuss the attraction of real estate debt and why it can be a compelling option for portfolio diversification.
